On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Arron Eicholz
<Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Below is the correct change that will be made to the CSS 2.1 specification[1]. Sorry for the confusion and I hope the resolves your issue.
>
> | 1. If the image has an intrinsic width and height, the used width and
> | height are the same.
> |
> | 2. Otherwise, if the image has an intrinsic ratio and either an
> | intrinsic width or an intrinsic height, the used width/height is the
> | same as the provided intrinsic width/height, and the used value of the
> | missing dimension is calculated from the provided dimension and the
> | ratio.
> |
> | 3. Otherwise, if the image has an intrinsic ratio, the used width is
> | 1em and the used height is calculated from this width and the
> | intrinsic ratio. If this would produce a height larger than 1em, then
> | the used height is instead set to 1em and the used width is calculated
> | from this height and the intrinsic ratio.
> |
> | 4. Otherwise, the image's used width is its intrinsic width if it has
> | one, or else 1em. The image's used height is its intrinsic height if
> | it has one, or else 1em.
>
> Please respond before 18 March, 2011 if you do not accept the current resolution.
Yup, that works.
I recall that fantasai complained during the meeting of my text being
overly verbose. fantasai, want to try this on for size instead?
| 1. If the image has only an intrinsic aspect ratio
| and no intrinsic width or intrinsic height, set the
| used width to 1em and calculate the used height from
| the width and the aspect ratio. If this would produce
| a used height larger than 1em, then instead set the
| used height to 1em and calculate the used width from
| the height and the aspect ratio.
|
| 2. Otherwise, set the used width and height to the
| intrinsic width and height, if they exist. If there
| are any missing dimensions, and the image has an
| intrinsic aspect ratio, calculate the missing
| dimension from the existing dimension and the aspect
| ratio. Otherwise, set the missing dimensions to 1em.
This is much shorter, but should be equally precise. It also hits all
8 combinations of missing/present dimensions. Is this better enough
to accept instead?
(If not, that's fine - I'm happy enough with my previous proposal that
we resolved on.)
~TJ